Many entities had a hand in defining CBRS including vendors and Winnforum and even WISPA. It was a lot of hard work and they seem to have done their best, and when it works, CBRS is a good thing.
What I take away is that the FCC is overly enamored with "spectrum sharing" and dynamic, algorithmic methods like DFS and LBT. They seem to believe in magical solutions, and ignore the complexity and flaws when these things actually get implemented. I would actually argue that DFS and LBT are less complex than CBRS, but more flawed. One of the good things about CBRS actually is that it gets rid of LBT and the false detects and jumping to alternate frequencies after dead times. DFS also has false detects, yet is fundamentally flawed because only the AP monitors for radar, so it creates outages without really protecting what it is supposed to protect. The actual solution was to publish the TDWR locations and frequencies and to just not use those frequencies if you are anywhere near a TDWR. Now the next plan is to us a cloud based system to keep PtMP and WiFi users from interfering with 6 GHz Part 101 incumbents. Granted it is supposed to be more static and less complicated than CBRS and the SAS, updates once per day and whatnot. I just hope the FCC isn't engaging in their magical thinking again. They like to wave their magic wand, and leave it to others to define the details and do the implementation. I'm not sure they ever have to experience the results of their wand waving, or that they fully understand what happens when a bunch of people stuck at home during a pandemic have their work-from-home and school-from-home interrupted for even a few minutes because one of these complex, magical solutions hiccups. The FCC tells us all the time how essential broadband is, but then they treat it like some hobby that can share spectrum and operate on a best-effort basis like it's no big deal if it doesn't always work. -----Original Message----- From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of Seth Mattinen Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 3:41 PM To: af@af.afmug.com Subject: Re: [AFMUG] anybody else having SAS problems this morning? On 4/30/20 7:15 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote: > Cambium confirmed they are aware of an issue. No details or ETA yet. > Or even exactly whose issue it is. > > Big organizations have way way way too much faith in ‘cloud computing’. Somewhere along the line people have latched onto this idea that the more massively complex a system is that means it must be more reliable. On the other hand, I'm of the opinion that constantly increasing complexity leads to more failure points and makes it harder to troubleshoot when something does go wrong. Also if it's in the cloud it's someone else's fault. -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com -- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
